If Mitt Romney had been sworn in today...

[MannyGoldstein]

He'd have the power to imprison or execute anyone, citizen or not, purely because he wanted to. Without any oversight from the Judiciary or anyone else.

Solely thanks to laws passed and/or strengthened under Bush and Obama.

You may think it's OK for Obama to have this power, but think what happens if we get a Romney or similar in office.

I think it's time to change these fabulous new laws.

[nadinbrzezinski]

1. But, but, how else...

Never mind.

(I agree by the way)

[ProSense]

2. Mitt Romney

is sad.



Closing out President Obama's first term - we've come a long way
http://www.democraticunderground.com/10022223211

[graham4anything]

3. yawn. Don't for Jeb in 2016. It is really quite simple.

[MannyGoldstein]

4. Warren45 will kick Jeb's butt.

But Warren shouldn't have these powers, either.

[graham4anything]

9. you do know she already many times said EVERYTHING'S on the table for Iran

and I would vote for her. You seem to think I wouldn't.
You seem to think Hillary, President Obama and Elizabeth Warren are on separate teams.

Why?

they are all working together to better America.

[MannyGoldstein]

10. Well...

[graham4anything]

20. you and I both agree (I think) on the fact that next President will indeed be a woman.(democratic)

And Warren would have my 100% support, though I think it would be Hillary and she more easy can defeat Jeb.

Either could beat all the other candidates, But Jeb is going to take a Hillary to beat Jeb
They already beat his father.
And had Bill been allowed to campaign, W would never have been in office.

Hillary45 can easily take 4 to 6 red states and turn them blue (including Texas).
But let me be clear, I would avidly support Warren if she ran and Hillary didn't.
(they will not both run against each other and split a vote, I would bet on that).

[cali]

28. that's delusional. sadly, she just doesn't have enough experience

as a politician, nor is she a natural one. anyone who actually thinks Warren stands a chance, just doesn't have a grasp of U.S. politics.

[Jim Lane]

15. It's highly likely that the Republicans will win at least one election of the next three

With FDR and Truman, the Democrats won five in a row in the 1930s and 1940s. Except for that streak, which arose from extremely unusual conditions, no party in the last 100 years has won more than three presidential elections in a row.

Even if you believe every Democratic President will be totally trustworthy (and, believe it or not, some of us don't have such complete confidence), you still can't refute Manny's concern by just urging people to vote against Republicans. In the not-all-that-distant future, a Republican will be sitting in the White House.

[graham4anything]

19. there but for division fracture in Dem Party and stupid 3rd party votes,

Had AES won, and LBJ not been sold down the river, it is quite possible that the Democrats would have been President since FDR without exceptoin

1968, 1980, 2000 was all from fracture of the party and voting 3rd party by those who felt a protest vote was in order

LBJ would have beaten Nixon
without the split in 1980 and John Anderson 7%, Jimmy Carter would have won
Jimmy should have made peace with Teddy and Teddy with Jimmy

and then Nixon, Reagan, Ford, Bush, Bush would not have ever been president

which is why you go with the strongest candidate of that particular time, and Hillary is.
Warren would be theoretically great (we are of course actually waiting for Congress to actually be in session so she can begin her senate career and do something), but it also
could lead to Jeb Dukakissing Warren like Jeb's Daddy did to another Mass. candidate (who was a super liberal and great guy) back in 1988.

So if Hillary wins as expected that is 8 more years as a continuation of President Obama,
after which we can all dream of Michelle running, or Castro running or other history making
wins.
Being that our side has more voters than theirs.

So that would then be 20 years more of Democratic presidents and a full US Supreme Court
possibly 8 to 1 or 9 to 0 by that time (Possibly with Chief Justice Barack Obama presiding.)

So, if there is no fracture,and no republican financed again Ralph Nader type, I don't see the worry.
Just say no to third parties and republicanlibertarianteaetcparty.
And don't vote for Jeb in 2016 to bring back the Bush's, just so the whining could continue.

It really is that simple.

Of course, I saw the Obama landslide from day one this time.
Other whiners and cuttenrunners saw Mittens/Glove.
Now Mittens is a defeated nobody, and Glove (Paul Ryan) is a defeated with no major base loser like the other tea party members are.
They may have up to 20-25%, but they do not have anywhere near anyway to get to 270
or the popular vote in a national race

Why don't the Manny's out there get all the OWS people to run for office in all 50 states, find a red district where one resides and run big campaigns to win back the house.
That is much likelier to lead to the house having more liberal candidates than the red seat currently in office.
At that time, it might be possible to do some of those foreign things easier, than with the
republican's holding the office

(BTW-the Dems never really had 60 senators.
What those that say they did forget is, how long it took Al Franken to be seated (7 to 8 months) so while the seat was theirs, it wasn't til then.

Note-all the whining about they are going to steal it, blah blah blah, Mittens never came close.

Like I said years ago, it was a sure thing President Obama would win, and I was correct.

[Jim Lane]

21. You seem to think that all you have to do is explain this on DU and the problems won't recur.

I agree with much (though not all) of your analysis, but so what?

There have in the past been divisive fractures in the Democratic Party. That may happen again.

There have in the past been harmful third-party candidacies. That may happen again (although the one good thing to be said about the Nader fiasco is that he made future such stupidities much less likely, by providing a real-life horrible example of what can go wrong).

There have in the past been Republican candidates like Eisenhower who had enormous personal popularity. That may happen again.

There have in the past been unexpected disasters befalling various candidates, such as the Eagleton revelations leading to his withdrawal from the ticket in 1972, or Romney getting caught on tape with the 47% remarks, or various debate gaffes. That may happen again, to the Democrat.

This is even without regard to the possible theft of the election, through voter suppression or outright fraud.

The bottom line is that you just never know. The two biggest losses in modern times -- Goldwater in 1964 and McGovern in 1972 -- were each followed just four years later by a victory for the party that had gotten clobbered. We simply can't make public policy on the assumption that the Republicans won't elect a President anytime soon.

Add to that the point that even a Democratic President shouldn't have these kinds of powers.

[graham4anything]

25. I expect another Goldwater republican fracture in 2016 for their side

and George McGovern was a really great guy, a great American
but who really, really thought he would win?
And that was before Eagleton.
Eagleton was a rotten dirty trick on the Dems -but it was something that should have never happened to start off with.

I love Teddy Kennedy.
1980 was the one wrong time for him to run, 1972 would have been better,

however,
had LBJ just ran before Bobby entered the race,(and Bobby would not have run against him, he only came in after it was known LBJ would not run), LBJ would have won the primary, Bobby would have been alive and could have run in 1972 and 1976, (followed by Ted perhaps),
and the protest vote stopped LBJ. However, against Nixon he would have prevailed anyhow.
Remember voters did not like Nixon, but I guess thought he was stronger than HHH(and he was).(but that is part of politics).

Now, it would have been a nasty, ugly race in 1968, Nixon vs. LBJ.
but LBJ was more powerful, and would have beaten Nixon (IMHO), had he been the nominee.
And after Bobby died, they should have begged LBJ to come back.
Being that HHH ran as LBJ lite, with all of the baggage, but none of the accomplishments,
it was foolish(and HHH almost won anyhow, it was so close).

And you know, RFK was not assured of being the nominee had he not been killed anyhow.
HHH might still have been the one the party bosses rammed through.

And remember too, Nixon sabatoged the peace talks, same way Reagan/Bush sabatoged
the hostage talks.

But dirty tricks is a part of politics, always was, always will be, which is why you need both sides to be equal in those ways too.

And those that hated LBJ for his role in the war, always forget the great things he did on all the other issues, and also forget that most likely, the times would have been the same for anyone else in that office to do the same thing.

(whereas it can be said, 9-11 would not have happened had Gore not had Nader telling the nation both were the same and the vote totals been 10 million lower than any other modern election totals (let alone the later theft).

But, speaking of theft, both parties need to be on equal terms there, and in the social media age, what happened in 2000 during the recount (IMHO) would not happen again-
that phony riot would have instantly, and nationally been outed, those people would have been arrested, and the recount continued.
Also, I have to believe that the middle of the night calling for Bush would not occur anymore,
and a different candidate now never would have gotten into the car to be driven to a concession speech.
The democratic party was horribly unequipt to deal with that whole mess (whereas it seemed in advance, the republicans had their legal teams and soundbytes ready.
(much like the media play on the CBS memo seemed to have(seemed HA HA HA) been coordinated before the memo was even publicly released(i.e. it was a complete set up).

While we were behind all that in 2000, we lead in that today, and the kids today are into it,something they were not in 2000(or 2004).
It's a totally different age.

(same as Hillary will have the one thing she did not have in 2008, me and all the other core President Obama voters voting for her.
Hillary most likely would have beaten McCain too, though McCain wouldn't have been stupid enough to then pick Sarah, so it could have made a little difference.
But Hillary most likely would have picked President Obama as her VP.(the uproar if she did not would have caused her defeat).(IMHO)(and i was most certainly as those that knew me then, not a Hillary fan in 2008, but am now, she earned it).(comes too from seeing things better in retrospect).

In many ways, it is better if(when) it happens in this order.

and therebut for that New York primary, Jerry Brown/Jesse Jackson could have maybe won.
On their 1-800 shoestring budget pre-internet social media days race.
But that too was politics.
You gotta do all of it to win it.

and yes, some of what you say is true, but some of the concern of things is stuff that is not going to happen, nor is it even there to happen.

George w. Bush getting on that helicopter inauguration day 2008, showed, all the fears that he wouldn't leave were silly. He like all the others ended his term, waved goodbye, and left, and how many people were running around scared that he wouldn't?(or that he would cancel the elections?)
Sometimes too much irrational fear, though one neds to always be vigiliant.

[catbyte]

27. And don't forget the illnesses of Roberrt Byrd & Ted Kennedy also cut into the 60.

[greatauntoftriplets]

5. Are you celebrating the inauguration by hanging this on your front door?

[ellisonz]

17. The Santorum family makes such wonderful wreaths!

[JoePhilly]

29. And these on the breakfast table ....

Best prepared in a saute of sour grapes seasoned with bitter herbs.

[RKP5637]

6. It's very concerning and really paves the way for some really really bad times if TPTB shift in

a really bad direction ... which given time will probably happen, eventually, things always seem to go in cycles.

[Enrique]

7. would he have the power to cut anyone's hair?

that's what I'd be worried about.

[fleur-de-lisa]

8. Ha! Funny!

[PennsylvaniaMatt]

11. We really dodged a bullet!

Amazing that this man:


Lost the senior vote to this man:

[RedCappedBandit]

12. It is beyond me why this isn't more of an issue.

Nobody should have that power.

[Coolest Ranger]

13. are you trying to make me throw up before I eat my dinner

[Duckhunter935]

14. agreed

the loss of rights under the PATRIOT act is outrageous and could very well be abused. I am so glad he got sent home packing.

[datasuspect]

18. the patriot act is an abuse in and of itself

[Comrade_McKenzie]

16. No he wouldn't. nt

[sakabatou]

22. I dunno, but it'd be worse than Junior.

[HipChick]

23. If Mitt Romney had been sworn in today.

I most certainly would not be freezing my buns off, waiting for hours on end...

[Bonobo]

24. Not only that --we'd ALL be united in opposition to drone strikes

in nations we are not at war with.

We would also all unite in agreement that secret evidence in secret trials is not acceptable.

We would suddenly all agree that presidents should not draw up lists of secret assassination targets and then, afterwards, refuse to provide information about how such decisions are made.

Etc.

[aquart]

26. Never thought it was okay.

Thanks to our cowardice over the traitor Bush, we can't impeach anymore, either.

[cali]

30. You are absolutely right and we should all be horrified by the Obama

administration's disgusting defense of this horrendous dog shit.

[Silent3]

31. While overall I'm glad Obama is president, that's one sore spot for me...

...that he hasn't done more to roll back Bush's expansion of executive power. In some areas, Obama has even expanded it.